Talk:Abernathy
My edit I did not undo any edits, I re-added one I previously made. Also - what are you even talking about, "meaningless" edit? It confirmed Abernathy were a follower of Grindelwald, and that was all it was supposed to do. Also - besides the fact that Abernathy worked for MACUSA, spoke with an American accent and that his name is a chiefly North American variation of the surname Abernethy, a surname originating from and associated with a Scottish clan by the same name descending from Orm de Abernethy, I can also ask why the articles of Rufus Scrimgeour, Pius Thicknesse, Mafalda Hopkirk, Amos Diggory, Bathsheda Babbling, Rolanda Hooch, Bathilda Bagshot, etc, are all assumed to be born in Britain and having attended Hogwarts, even though it hasn't been directly ''confirmed by canon. Why is Abernathy such an odd case? ''Is there any less reason to think he is born in America than it is for us to think Scrimgeour was born in Britain? Maester Martin (talk) 00:42, October 31, 2018 (UTC) : On this edit you copied over an older version of the page which undid or reverted all the subsequent edits and added back in all your speculation as to his birth and schooling which lacks any references. As for the other example pages you gave, if their information is not referenced then they should be cleaned up as well. Just because someone at some point added speculative information to some articles does not support doing it to others. --Ironyak1 (talk) 04:31, October 31, 2018 (UTC) And we are back to the whole "having no idea what the word speculation means", aren't we? *Sigh* Do what you want... Maester Martin (talk) 04:56, October 31, 2018 (UTC) Your response: : For clarity, I did not undo your edits to Abernathy, but removed the excessive wordy interpretation of his motivations and the complete speculation that he assisted Grindelwald's initial infiltration of MACUSA. ' : It is either the case that Abernathy helped Grindelwald with the infiltration of MACUSA, or it is the case that he was persauded to join the cause after the fact. That's a fact. There is no middle ground to be had, either he joined him before he was caught, or he joined him after he was caught. And if you go back in the history and read my BTS edit again, it should be rather obvious that I made no truth claims in regard to which one it was, I simply as a way of contextualizing the point about our ignorance, emphasized that contained within one of those two unverified cases, there was explainatory power. Without that contextualization, it serves no purpose to highlight the fact that we don't know which one is the case, as all we're left with are either "duh", or "And ...?". BTS is supposed to be either informative, or clarifying in the way its written, and that's what I did. : The Killing Curse, for example, has an age-long note reading; "''The biological reasons for the victim's death have never been fully explained. In any case, it is something that does not affect the health of the victims, as Muggle autopsy show that there is no change aside from outright death. It may simply be that the Curse just causes every organ in the body to instantaneously "shut down"." : I ''did not ''say that Abernathy joined or were even likely to have joined Grindelwald early on, I said that in light of the explainatory power of the scenario where Abernathy became a trusted follower who assisted Grindelwald with his infiltration early on in regard to subsequent canon events, and the lack thereof in the scenario where Grindelwald goes out of his way to help an expendable pawn whom he had no reason to allow into his innermost circle of followes, an argument can be made for Abernathy's early involvement. Which is not speculation, it's an objective fact. Because it can. My change was a clarifying contextualization, just like the one above. : As compared with the Harry Potter books, where we are given the narrator's statements of what people think and feel, with the Fantastic Beasts movies, we mostly have only their words and actions so statements as to their internal state, such as "being carried away by self-purpose", are just one user's interpretation and not fact. : '''We also have no idea of how Abernathy joined MACUSA - maybe he was hired as a supervisor and did nothing to advance to that position. How he came to be involved with the security of Grindelwald is also unknown so it cannot be used as evidence of his personality or abilities. : 1) That's why I made no claim as to how ''he got to guard Grindelwald, only that he ''did. : 2) Yes, it can, and pretending it can't is silly. There is no chance, no scenario that would or could have happened, where Abernathy would have been authorized to go anywhere near Grindelwald's cell if President Picquery was not confident that Abernathy was a reliable man and a capable wizard. Character and aptitude tests are recquired to see if prospective Aurors are fit for duty, and for all Picquery knew, ignorant of the switch as she was, Abernathy were checking that a bigger threat more than almost a 100% of all Aurors never have to deal with, (this is to say, Aurors who came before and after Grindelwald and Voldemort and never had to face someone with magical power on the level of Dumbledore and his two aforementioned enemies), was securely contained. If she was not confident he was fit to occupy a position that would allow him to do that, he wouldn't have, out of fear that he might inadvertently do something stupid that would've enabled Grindelwald to escape. : Just because you have a belief in how MACUSA functions internally does not make it so (which is the basic point brought up to you over and over again, to which you argue that your interpretation must be right regardless if multiple other people don't agree). : Because there are cases where what you have inaccurately labled as "speculation" was not, in fact, speculation. Maester Martin (talk) 21:23, March 31, 2019 (UTC) "It is either the case that Abernathy helped Grindelwald with the infiltration of MACUSA, or it is the case that he was persauded to join the cause after the fact." As this covers all of time, of course there is no middle ground. There is also no need to contextualize what we don't know, or explain which possibility might make more sense, as we simply don't know. The "Behind the scenes section" is not for personal theorizing (which the Killing Curse does not do - it simply notes the lack of knowledge and the canon information about its effects - there are no extensive explanations on how it might effect the heart, or nerves, or any other possibility). Your additions to Abernathy's Personality section were to show he was "an ambitious individual" with an "achievement-oriented determination" that led to his position of authority and security clearance. As noted before, maybe he was hired for his role, maybe it was punishment for past mistakes to have to oversee such low functionaries, maybe he was given such positions because he's friends with a higher up, or simply because he was loyal to the administration (again there are innumerable ways to explain his situation besides the one "fact" you offer). President Picquery isn't shown to be a great judge of character given how things turned out so using her as a character reference seems unwise. We wouldn't keep having this same conversation if you would refrain from trying to add "context" and "implied meaning" to situations and characters we simply have little information about. Just because an explanation makes sense to you does not make it part of canon, which is only what the articles should contain. --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:06, April 1, 2019 (UTC) : As this covers all of time, of course there is no middle ground. Ah, yes, poor choice of words. Let me rephrase that: It is either the case that Abernathy helped Grindelwald with the infiltration of MACUSA, or it is the case that he did not ''help Grindelwald with his infiltration of MACUSA. There is no middle ground. : '''There is also no need to contextualize what we don't know, or explain which possibility might make more sense, as we simply don't know. ' I can't help but notice that you added Snape's boggart to the BTS section on his page? How is this any different? Before you go; "We have been given a strong implication by Rowling", that's also the case with Abernathy: The fact that Grindelwald went out of his way and took unnecessary risks to bring him into the fold, that's the implication Rowling gave us. Which is no less vague than the hint she gave on Snape's boggart. : The "Behind the scenes section" is not for personal theorizing (which the Killing Curse does not do - it simply notes the lack of knowledge and the canon information about its effects - there are no extensive explanations on how it might effect the heart, or nerves, or any other possibility). Nor was there any extensive explonation about what part specifically Abernathy might have played in Grindelwald's infiltration of MACUSA, if that was indeed the case, it only noted that available data pointed in that direction. : Your additions to Abernathy's Personality section were to show he was "an ambitious individual" with an "achievement-oriented determination" that led to his position of authority and security clearance. Of course I did. And it's an axiomatic assessment. 1) He joined the revolutionary endeavour of the most dangerous Dark Wizard of the day to overturn the Statutes of Secrecy and change the world for For the Greater Good. Of course he's ambitious. 2) The script denotes Abernathy as a "pompous jobsworth", usually defined as "an official who upholds petty rules even at the expense of humanity or common sense", a trait shared with every social climber that has ever been presented in canon.. (Not counting Lucius Malfoy, who didn't work.at the Ministry and hence weren't an offical, but twisted rules, bylaws and laws in a similar manner to bolster his own position). I called Abernathy a "jack-in-office" because that's ''usually defined as "a self-important minor official", which was what Abernathy was in the first movie, serving both as a description and a contextual synonym to "jobsworth". 3) Just like you don't go over to the guy who mops the floors at the Department of Justice and arbitrarily hands him the office of Attorney general, there ''is ''no and ''could ''not be a scenario where Abernathy goes from overlooking people at the Wand Permit Office where "utter no-gooders work" to help oversee the security of one of the most, if not ''the most notorious wizarding criminals in the history of wizardkind up until that point without doing somehing for it. There would necessarily ''be certain recquirements Abernathy would have to meet, and if Abernathy wanted to have any hope of ever being in a position that would allow him to help Grindelwald, he had to ''do ''something to get there. I don't pretend to know what that is, but he ''had to achieve making President Picquery believe his reliability was beyond reproch, or he couldn't have done anything. He could not be in a position where Grindelwald could pretend to be him and have the clearance to retrieve Grindelwald's possessions, nor have security clearance to go anywhere close enough to any cell, let alone that of Grindelwald's, to see if the prisoner inside it was "secure and ready to be moved". : ' As noted before, maybe he was hired for his role, maybe it was punishment for past mistakes to have to oversee such low functionaries, maybe he was given such positions because he's friends with a higher up, or simply because he was loyal to the administration (again there are innumerable ways to explain his situation besides the one "fact" you offer). ' Yes, I agree, there are numerous ways he could have gotten the job, which is why I never tried to specify how he got it. But in all scenarioes you presented, he would still ''have to ''do something ''to get there. If he had friend in high places to just gave him a job without people higher up than them didn't feel he was fit for, Abernathy would been back to square one long before he got his new paycheck. : ' President Picquery isn't shown to be a great judge of character given how things turned out so using her as a character reference seems unwise.' Does Barty Crouch's deception of Albus Dumbledore make ''him ''a poor judge of character? Maester Martin (talk) 15:01, April 2, 2019 (UTC) ::Confused about the argument. Queenie Goldstein also joined For the Greater Good Revolution, and I personally don't associate her with "ambitious", in fact, my opinion about her action may offend people with the wording so I won't be sharing lol. People can make excuse for her saying she joined because such and such reasons; well, imo, the same literally can be done for Abernathy. He simply isn't developed much imo, so to say he's ambitious just because he joined a cause that, some may have joined because they're gullible, is quite astounding. And yes, I'm aware you had 2 more points but I'm just talking about that 1st point in itself makes little sense. You are totally entitled to your opinion, but you might want to consider that other people may not share your point of view. Ironyak1 is equally entitled to believe otherwise. You are free to express all the reasons you feel makes sense, but perhaps invite other people to join the conversation, so you can actually hear what other people think about the matter. Because if it isn't obvious, the conversation is going nowhere when it's just 2 people in disagreement. ::--Sammm✦✧(talk) 15:38, April 2, 2019 (UTC) ::: '''Confused about the argument. Queenie Goldstein also joined For the Greater Good Revolution, and I personally don't associate her with "ambitious", in fact, my opinion about her action may offend people with the wording so I won't be sharing lol.' ::: That's different. Firstly, because Queenie didn't really join the cause, she joined Grindelwald, specifically, hoping that he could somehow allow her and Jacob to be together. When Abernathy "joined Grindelwald", he joined the cause, and became a member of Grindelwald's inner circle, which is kind of different, as he is privy to things Queenie wouldn't be. He's an actual follower of Grindelwald's, Queenie simply decided to go with him so she could be with Jacob, and Grindelwald only let her because it'd be easier to get Creedence to side with him, (who currently just follow him to learn who he is), with a Golstein on board, since Credence knows and trusts Tina and hence would be inclined to trust her sister. And/or he maybe hope to find a way to exploit Queenie into using her natural gifts in Legilimency to aid him somehow. ::: People can make excuse for her saying she joined because such and such reasons; ' ::: It would be an explonation rooted in canon information, not an excuse. ::: '''Well, imo, the same literally can be done for Abernathy. He simply isn't developed much imo, so to say he's ambitious just because he joined a cause that, some may have joined because they're gullible, is quite astounding. ' ::: And here is the distinction between the rabble of Grindelwald's supporters and his innermost circle of followers, because there ''is ''a distinct difference between the two. No one would, let alone could, join Grindelwald's inner circle out of gullability, because Grindelwald wouldn't permit it. They are his confidantes, people whom he trust to have his back. None of them ''can ''be gullible, because that'd be detrimental to Grindelwald's plans because anyone could just willy-nilly convince them to swtich sides on a whim and expose his plans to Dumbledore and/or his allies. He'd never allow that to happen. ::: I agree, Abernathy isn't as developed as he could have been, but we know ''enough. ''. ::: '''You are free to express all the reasons you feel makes sense, ::: It isn't a question of "what makes sense", but what can be derived from current canon sources. ::: but perhaps invite other people to join the conversation, so you can actually hear what other people think about the matter. ' ::: Of course. Sorry, Sammm, I never meant to exclude anyone. In this particular case, I simply replied to something Ironyak1 wrote on my talk page and figured this was the place to do it, since it was about Abernathy's article, specifically. Maester Martin (talk) 18:13, April 2, 2019 (UTC) :::: I do agree that whatever perspective you look at it, Abernathy was ambitious and was portrayed as willingly very loyal to Grindelwald and the cause. However, I do feel that there was no need for such a detailed description of the character. Just one line could have put those basic facts together. There is not a lot to say because very little is known about him and I'm not one for inferring things and writing such detailed paragraphs about a minor character especially when before your detailed description, three large paragraphs existed for such a character that was basically a simpler, factual summary of what your trying to say that does not have your speculation of "maybe it was this, or maybe it was another thing". - Kates39 (talk) 21:25, April 2, 2019 (UTC) :::: :::'I do agree that whatever perspective you look at it, Abernathy was ambitious and was portrayed as willingly very loyal to Grindelwald and the cause. :::Thank you. ::: :::However, I do feel that there was no need for such a detailed description of the character. Just one line could have put those basic facts together. ' :::Be that as it may, as I told Ironyak1 earlier, there is nothing wrong with being thourough. ::: :::'There is not a lot to say because very little is known about him and I'm not one for inferring things and writing such detailed paragraphs about a minor character :::There it would seem we have different opinions: I do not differentiate between minor and major characters, I simply look at what is known about them and I document it. ::: :::especially when before your detailed description, three large paragraphs existed for such a character that was basically a simpler, factual summary of what your trying to say :::I found the paragraphs in question to be insufficent and only giving a half-baked description. ::: :::that does not have your speculation of "maybe it was this, or maybe it was another thing" :::Are you talking about the BTS section? As I explained above, that was not, in fact, speculative. Maester Martin (talk) 22:40, April 2, 2019 (UTC)